US Supreme Court ruling could lead to deporting 8,000

[peejay 327]

Ruling could lead to deporting 8,000

High court says legal immigrants can be ousted for role in car theft

By David Savage

Originally published January 18, 2007

WASHINGTON // The Supreme Court made it easier yesterday for the government to deport thousands of legal immigrants who were involved in car thefts.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices said noncitizens who were convicted or pleaded guilty in California to the theft of a motor vehicle also are guilty of an "aggravated felony" under immigration laws, even if they simply aided another person to carry out the theft.

The ruling reverses a decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which said California's law sweeps too broadly and could brand some minor participants as serious criminals deserving of deportation.

Despite the focus on California's law, the decision will apply across the country: The court pointed out that every state has a similar car-theft measure.

Government lawyers said the 9th Circuit's ruling, which applied throughout the West, had blocked the deportation of more than 8,000 immigrants.

Under a strict 1996 immigration reform law, legal immigrants who have an "aggravated felony" on their records will be automatically deported from the United States.

Intended to rid the nation of immigrants who are criminals, the law calls for their deportation even if they have lived legally in this country for decades and have a job and a family.

Class of felony

The law has put a sharp focus on what crimes can be deemed an aggravated felony. Congress listed a series of such crimes, including a "theft offense," that can result in at least a year in prison.

Luis Duenas-Alvarez, a 32-year-old native of Peru and a permanent legal resident, pleaded guilty in Marin County in 2002 to taking a Honda Accord without the owner's permission. He was sentenced to three years in state prison.

As his term neared its end, federal authorities moved to deport him, saying his theft offense was an aggravated felony under federal law.

But the 9th Circuit blocked that move, ruling that it was not clear whether Duenas-Alvarez intended to steal the car. It was one of a series of rulings in which the appeals court said California law on vehicle thefts was too broad because it applies to the participants in a theft, not just to the principal thief.

Writing for the court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer disagreed with that analysis. "In criminal law today, one who aids or abets a theft falls, like the principal, within the scope of the law against auto theft," he wrote. "We cannot agree that California's law is somehow special."

Last month, the Supreme Court leaned the opposite way in a related case involving legal immigrants who commit drug crimes. In a 8-1 decision then, the justices rejected automatic deportation for an immigrant who pleaded guilty to drug possession in South Dakota.

Not final defeat

Yesterday's ruling in Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez is a setback for the immigrant, but not a final defeat.

"The decision expressly leaves open our ability to present additional arguments to the Court of Appeals," said Christopher J. Meade, a New York lawyer who represented him in the high court.

Reacting to yesterday's ruling, Stanford law professor Robert Weisberg said it was no surprise the court said those who aid or abet a theft are guilty of the crime of theft.

"In modern law, aiding and abetting is not a separate offense. This was mainly a rebuke to the 9th Circuit, which was clearly trying to find a way to save this guy from deportation," Weisberg said.

"Some of their decisions seem to have a neon ring around them that says, 'Reverse this decision.'"

The high court's ruling was not a total victory for the government, however. The justices stopped short of deciding whether mere joyriding could be deemed an aggravated felony.

They also left open the question of whether the deportation law should also extend to people who are an accessory after the fact to a car theft, including traveling in a stolen car. These issues can be decided later, the court said.

David Savage writes for the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...world-headlines

[Ban Hammer 14,421]

so one can be a dealer, not a stealer

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ha, another 9th circuit bleeding-heart ruling overturned by SCOTUS, and 9-0 at that! Nice.

[peejay 327]

Ha, another 9th circuit bleeding-heart ruling overturned by SCOTUS, and 9-0 at that! Nice.

Yes...the lunatic fringe on Nutty 9th has cost the US taxpayer gazoodles of $$$ with their lame rulings that repeatedly have to be overturned by the High Court. I'm sure that the litigating lawyers love them for the continued job security.

I'm just an opinionated blue-collar offshore oilfield worker...but why in the hell would any American want to bar deportation proceedings against convicted lowlife thieves that are not US citizens and allow that trash to stick around to commit more crimes here when it is possible to avoid the problem altogether by deporting them back to their own countries and the jurisdiction of their own governments?

Maybe the bookworms on the 9th need to get out into the real world and deal with reality instead of some esoteric social theorum that a vast majority of the American people do not want to grasp or have imposed on them?

[Ban Hammer 14,421]

I'm just an opinionated blue-collar offshore oilfield worker...but why in the hell would any American want to bar deportation proceedings against convicted lowlife thieves that are not US citizens and allow that trash to stick around to commit more crimes here when it is possible to avoid the problem altogether by deporting them back to their own countries and the jurisdiction of their own governments?

it baffles me too

Edited January 20, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Illegal aliens are people, too. And you know, people should never be punished. It's not fair. They're people and they have families who love them! How can you even suggest punishing another person? It's not right. People should never be punished for anything. After all, they're people.

[Ban Hammer 14,421]

Illegal aliens are people, too. And you know, people should never be punished. It's not fair. They're people and they have families who love them! How can you even suggest punishing another person? It's not right. People should never be punished for anything. After all, they're people.

ok, who are you and what did you do with gupt?

[sparkofcreation 0]

so one can be a dealer, not a stealer

If you're referring to drugs, "aggravated felony" (i.e. what one is deported for automatically) already includes all drug-distribution crimes (but not simple possession of an amount consistent with personal use--that was another SCOTUS ruling last month), all immigration felonies (reentry, transporting, harboring, false documents) and all violent crimes (manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, robbery, burglary of a dwelling).

A non-USC *can* be deported for any crime at all except minor, non-DUI traffic offenses. It's just that some mean you get deported automatically, and some mean it's optional.

Edited January 20, 2007 by sparkofcreation

[Ban Hammer 14,421]

so one can be a dealer, not a stealer

If you're referring to drugs, "aggravated felony" (i.e. what one is deported for automatically) already includes all drug-distribution crimes (but not simple possession of an amount consistent with personal use--that was another SCOTUS ruling last month), all immigration felonies (reentry, transporting, harboring, false documents) and all violent crimes (manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, robbery, burglary of a dwelling).

A non-USC *can* be deported for any crime at all except minor, non-DUI traffic offenses. It's just that some mean you get deported automatically, and some mean it's optional.

did you read the original post at all? that is what drew that comment of mine.

"Last month, the Supreme Court leaned the opposite way in a related case involving legal immigrants who commit drug crimes. In a 8-1 decision then, the justices rejected automatic deportation for an immigrant who pleaded guilty to drug possession in South Dakota."

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

Well this is helpful to know. I will steal a bicycle rather than a car if I am ever in that area, in a deperate situation and need immediate transportation.

[Heracles 417]

Illegal aliens are people, too. And you know, people should never be punished. It's not fair. They're people and they have families who love them! How can you even suggest punishing another person? It's not right. People should never be punished for anything. After all, they're people.

wow. I have not heard that comment in a while. The left wing Australians usually throw out that #######..

What concerns me is that illegal immigrants are given a free ride and a get-out-of-jail-free card while legal immigrants are scrutinized with a fine tooth comb..

[peejay 327]

Illegal aliens are people, too. And you know, people should never be punished. It's not fair. They're people and they have families who love them! How can you even suggest punishing another person? It's not right. People should never be punished for anything. After all, they're people.

The ruling involved legal permanent residents that are not US citizens. The point being that under our laws certain classes of convicted criminals even though they came here legally and are legal permanent residents are deportable. And that is a good thing. Why keep convicted foreign criminals around to give them the opportunity to commit more crimes here in the future when they can be sent back home and be somebody elses' problem?

Illegal aliens are a different story. They are deportable whether they are convicted of crimes they are arrested for or not. Unfortunately many "sanctuary cities" release illegal alien criminals back into American society on bond pending trial or after serving their sentences. But that is a different issue altogether. That is more about government incompetence and/or more misguided esoteric ideology than about laws available to deport them.

Suffice to say that I could care less whether a deportable criminal came here legally or illegally...they need a permanent one way ticket back to their home country. Their families are free to follow or to stay (if they are here legally). That is their problem to ponder. Removal of their family member solves my problem and is in the best interests of my community.

Yes, I agree, they are people...deportable criminal people. I don't agree with the rest of the post.

And I know you are just stirring the pot to rattle my cage. Party on.

[choji 0]

The ruling involved legal permanent residents that are not US citizens. The point being that under our laws certain classes of convicted criminals even though they came here legally and are legal permanent residents are deportable. And that is a good thing. Why keep convicted foreign criminals around to give them the opportunity to commit more crimes here in the future when they can be sent back home and be somebody elses' problem?

Where do you suggest the convicted criminals with American citizenship are to be deported to?

Or are you suggesting that those are not commiting more crimes in the future?

[peejay 327]

The ruling involved legal permanent residents that are not US citizens. The point being that under our laws certain classes of convicted criminals even though they came here legally and are legal permanent residents are deportable. And that is a good thing. Why keep convicted foreign criminals around to give them the opportunity to commit more crimes here in the future when they can be sent back home and be somebody elses' problem?

Where do you suggest the convicted criminals with American citizenship are to be deported to?

Or are you suggesting that those are not commiting more crimes in the future?

No...but we are stuck with them as they are citizens of this country and have no where else to go. For better or worst they are our responsibility and problem to deal with. However...they are free to immigrate to other countries that are foolish enough to accept them. I certainly wouldn't beg them to stay and would be all too happy if they did leave.

Foreign criminals do have somewhere else to go...like back home to where they originally came from. And good riddance! Their government is responsible for them and can deal with them as they see fit. That is their problem to solve.